tv [untitled] June 20, 2011 10:30pm-11:00pm PDT
contract for a hall of justice generator project and while this contract we can close out the funds that the project still is not complete and requires the funds to complete it. so i don't think you're acting on these today but i did just want to point them out. the others we will be closing out and returning the balances, but they are not general fund resources so they would be returned to the general fund sources. and with that i conclude my presentation and happy to answer any questions that you have. >> thank you very much mr. res skrvings -- mr. riskin. mr. rose? >> as mr. riskin has referenced on page 109 of our report, we are withdrawing the last recommendation of $21,595.
i've withdrawn that. and on the recommendation above that services of other departments, we leave that. we recommend that you cut that by 200,000 dollars but as mr. riskin clarified we want to say that the general fund moneys for "the apprentice"ship program will be replaced by $200,000 solid waste moneys resulting in the savings of $200,000. so with those revisions on page five of our report where we state that our recommended reductions and they're detailed on page 104 through 111, they now total $813,825 and that's where the withdraw of the $21,595 that i just referenced.
and including -- we were not aware that there was a problem with the two -- two of the incouple ranses. we will look at that next week. our recommendation was that you do close out a total of 160,046 dollars. the recommendation would result in a total redestruction of 973,471 of which $546,5943 would be save togs the general funds. i ask that we consider both of the pieces of legislation on page 104 to be pollities to the board. >> thank you very much. the items before us are not only the budget but also a couple of pieces of legislation. if we could take a motion to amend item number eight to reflect page two, line four
changes out $56.76. >> motion to amend. >> we've got a motion to amend that item and we can do that without objection. it sounds like the department sp in agreement with a couple of caveats, the removal of the recommendation for $21,590 in overtime and the mandatory fringe benefits associated with it on page 109 in addition to accept the environmental services but to supplement that with $200,000 and so colleagues if we can do that without objection? ok. we'll do that without objex. and now the project closeouts fabbed i can ask harvey to figure out that last component. thank you. i don't believe that we'll be requiring you to come next week. thank you. ok. next department, board of
angela calvillo the clerk of the board. as you recall in january, the committee directed me to repair a budget that provide for the five core functions in the budget, to maintain records both curn and historical to provide access to the record to the public, provide for the administration and operations necessary. to support the board and its official duty including legislative and analyst services. in addition the board has described other responsibilities to our department which require budgetary and administrative resources such as the assessment appeals board, the youth commission, the sunshine ordinance task force, and the clerking of the revenue bond oversight committee. please neat while the proposed budget necessary states necessary funds resources for these core service area, we have recognized the city's
financial constraints and included cost savings where savings would not negatively impact the public these services. now to the details. thank you sfgtv. i've included a six-slide power point in the online packet. in february you approved the department's budget. at that time it was $10.78 million. what was before the committee submitted by the mayor was slightly more than approved in february based upon cost associated with final benefits and the true cost of work orders charged to us by other departments. the budget now totals $10.83 million. this chart provides an overview of the budget proposal by division. as shown the proposed budget does increase the general fund allocation by $300,000 or by
3%. it makes up the majority of this increase which is more clearly shown on the next slide which is our projected salary costs. the committee is aware the proposed budget does not include any new positions, upgrades or other increases in staff support. the proposed salary budget is $7.7 million or 5.4%, higher than the current year. and again, it's the fringe benefit increases that are driving over half of this change. the factors resulting in the remaining increases are a decrease in attrition savings to 6% which is still high for a small department, an increase in temporary salaries in the a.a.b. to meet the contracting workload and natural increases in salary steps based on longevity and time on the job. this is off set by a reduction
in temporary salaries in the clerk's office, slight reduction in longevity premium pay due to staff turnover. the next slide presents the projected nonsalary costs. the budget proposal decreases are nonsalary budget by $39,000 or by 1.2%. the primary reason for this is the $100,000 reduction in advertising expenses which is achievable due the board apruing recent legislation, redefining the term "summary." this is offset due to defer i.t. license and minimal hardware replacement. and now to our revenues. over the past several years the board has sought to increase nongeneral funds fund sources and as a result we've reduced or a.a.b. fees, we've changed practices such that appeal
surcharges are now assessed on all environmental classifications including category exemptions. we've assisted them with the p.u.c. oversight revenue bond and for the department share of citywide memberships and that's specifically that's the p.u.c. the -- the -- excuse me -- the p.u.c. the port and the m.t.a. thank you. and now to our general fund allocation. >> just quickly, the citywide membership that's a result of being able to recover from enterprise performance? >> that's correct. while we're seeing an increase in general fund support, the proposed budget is $508,000.
so the cost saving measures we have taken over the last several years are still showing results. you can see from this chart that reductions in budget and legislative analyst services by far is the largest -- is the division that's taken the largest decrease. the youth commission is also down due to holding a position vacant. the a.a.b. and sunshine have been given additional resources from the clerk's office based on workload demands. and all other increases are reflecting the growth of fringe increases. i'm confident that our department has done its very best to cut costs and still deliver our core services required in the charter and the administrative code and now to the five-year fork. as is this trend in general fund depends this department's expenditure growth will outpace growth in the general fund revenue. according to the controller's
projections, wave growth will average 3.8%. and fringe will average 10.2% which represents an increase from $7.7 million to a $9.6 million salary budget for our labor cost at the owned of the five-year period. this is of course without adding any new positions. in the department in future years, we have no clear opportunity to significantly grow our nongeneral fund sources since we've already increased the a.a.b. fees and the land use appeal fees have already been increased and are now established. we're a very small department and we'll have to rely the work of the board of supervisors advancing citywide initiatives to control labor cost and perhapses the generation of new revenues. i want to say thank you to rebecca crole and to the controller, we are again short
staffed in the middle of the year and both stepped up to assist us. i'm in agreement with the budget analyst recommendations and i want to thank debra newman for finding extra savings in the department. here with me is our new director of administration finance ms. deborah barone and madeline lecuvelli, don duran. that concludes the budget presentation portion of my presentation, but if the committee would allow me just one more second to make introductory remarks about the other item on the agenda which is the exercising of the two-year contract, the option for the budget and legislative analyst. time has come to consider whether or not to exercise the two-year extension to the contract for professional budget and legislative analyst services held by the joint vebchur, harvey rose, associates.
deborah a. newman, louie n. wong. they review the city and county's proposed annual budget. they analyze and report on all fiscal matters and legislation, they conduct audits as required. there is existing language in the contract which states should the board of supervise ors choose to exercise the two-year ongs. the board may also determine that time to initiate an option of living adjustment prior to executing the option. and finally should the board determine not to exercise this two-year option, i would notify the consultant by august 1st, 2011 that the contract would end december 31st, 2011. there's a motion in your packet today to exercise the final options set forth in the agreement thereby extending the contract for an additional two years from january 1st, 2012 to december 3 1st, 2013.
that concludes my presentation. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, ms. calvillo and thank you for all your work with the support of the board. we appreciate that. mr. rose? >> page 116 of our report. we recommend a total of $33,583. that's a 100% general fund reduction. it would allow $318,000. we recommend closing out 31,649 a prior year on general fund incumbrances. this will result in 262,000 in
the general fund. >> with regard to the project closeout, are you also in agreement with those? >> yes, madam chair. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> supervisor? >> just some quick questions that i'd seen. could you explain a little more. i didn't know about our new joint city and city college select committee. i don't know what the process of creating a new committee. if you would address that and also the additional subcommittee for the p.u.c. oversight committee. i know that you continue to add on various new responsibilities as time goes on but do we ever look at also looking at or terminating other -- other -- other sorts of responsibilities -- >> so to answer your question, yes.
in the legislative popper so to speak, there is a request to initiate a new joint city and community college standing or special select committee. it has yet to come to the board of supervisors for consideration and approval. but should that gain its approval, of course, the board -- the clerk's office would staff that. and there are -- they're specific to how we treat standing and committees every year the clerk's office performs something called the medi act where we reach out to every single boarder committee and we decide whether or not they've met in the last six months and if they met quorum. we have recently done that, that research. we've submitted a let tore the board and to the city attorney just indicating there were several boards and committees that did not meet that standard
and according to that particular board rule that they will be closed out and the deputy city attorney is creating legislation for the board's consideration. you're welcome. >> thank you, supervisor. >> given that we do have an agreement between our clerk and the budget analyst on the project closeout can we take those without objection? we'll do that without objection. thank you very much for your presentation. we won't be requiring that you come next week. >> thank you to all members of the colleagues. >> thank you. from my understanding we were requested top switch out on page 2 line 4 $56.72. however because there is a legal requirement for noticing for fees, we're not able to make that change because it hasn't been noted at the higher level. i believe the total dollar value to the city would be something about $1,500 or so.
but given that we have some noticing requirements that would not be met if we changed that, can we go ahead and take a motion to reverse that action? ok. we'll do that without objection. thank you. ok. next department, mayor's office. >> good afternoon, supervisor, greg wagoner, mayor's budget director. i will spare you a presentation about our budget, but just to give you a couple of the main highlights, we have a modest growth in our budget that's due primarily to funds at the
mayor's office of housing which are grant funds. i think that to them being operational changes proposed in the budget are number one, a shift of three positions from the mayor's office of neighborhood services to the city administrator under 311. the goal of that change being to create a client customer service center that's much more integrated with 311 that can respond to inquiries on behalf of the mayor and the board of supervisors and have that data integrated and have a personalize service format that's proposed in the budget starting this fall. the second item is one that we touched on briefly earlier today which is actually in the general city responsibility budget. that is an appropriation of
$325,000 for may yorl transition. that fund as spelled out in the admin provisions could not be used until after the starting date of a new may yorl term and with the submission of an expenditure plan to the controller's office and by a certification that it's in compliance by our financial procedures. of the items in the budget analysts report, i want to thank the budget analyst for working with us, debra newman and of course harvey. we are in agreement with recommendations in that report to reduce a couple of things first being some salaries and fringe benefits in the work order fund and the total value of those reductions is $56,466.
in additional it's listed within the mayor's budget within the general city responsibility. we've agreed with the budget analyst to transition to $226,000 and that's reflected in the report on chen city. so we're in agreement with the budget analyst. they have flagged it as policy issue, the transition fund. i'm happy to have further discussions with you on that issue to the extent of your interest and one that's appropriate. >> thank you very much. just a quick question. with the remaining mayor's office of neighborhood services primarily most of those positions did go to the 311 call center to help with better integration there but there is,
i believe, about $150,000 or so that's left in that area or that division. can you explain what that remaining person would do? >> sure. that person would actually have a very large portfolio work to do, but that would be essentially responding to a constituent inquiries that come directly to the mayor's office that would be working to community groups to respond with information, to set up public meetings, to respond to written e-mail phone inquiries of the mayor's office of various functions that are currently provide under the mayor's office and neighborhood services. a number of those functions will be transfered to 311 and those will be the types of inquirys that will fit into the scope of work but there are a number of jobs that are
appropriate to stay within the mayor's office while the bulk is being transfered to 311, there is some additional staffing that will help that with that workload. >> thank you. >> do you have a question on this one? >> thank you. >> supervisor kim >> this is something that i brought up earlier, but i just want some clarification from the controller's office or from the mayor's budget office about what it would look like to approve this transition fund. how would it fit in with the prinpls of her budget? what would you be looking for? >> for the chair the supervisor from the controller's office. the mayor's office requested that the funds be put in jen city which is outside of the mayor's office and not available to the office. once a new mayor is appointed and has entered the office, the
new mayor would present the plan to the controller's office top spend those funds. and then we would a lot those funds transfer those funds into the mayor's office. it has the flexibility to increase either staff or contractual services or equipment or supplies. it really doesn't have any -- any definitive expenditure. it would be up to the new mayor to do so. >> i see here that it says expenditures shall be consistent with the practices and policies. there's nothing specific. it's very general. >> well, if for example, the new mayor wanted to establish a few position, they would need to adhere to the regular classification process and the pay structure that exists within the city, the same fringe benefits and so forth. if it was a contract it would have to be let in according to the city's rule and so forth.
>> just really quickly. i feel very uncomfortable with this especially if this is something that we've not done in practice. i would want more justification as to a transition fund for our new mayor particularly since we haven't done this before why in the past -- why historically we feel that the cost is justified. i think a lot of us would love additional support. i know the board of supervisors ourselves constantly need additional support. so i'm kind of wondering where this is coming from. i would love to hear more on that >> madam chair and members of the board of supervisory, this is one of the reason why we suggested to be a policy. in fact, we discussed it after this morning's well, before the first session at 1:45. and we are going to put in as an alternative policy recommendation that those funds will reserved because your point is well taken, which is our point. and that is the board of
supervisors in aproving this $300,000 as is would not have the details like they have on any other appropriation of how it's going be expended. so where as mr. wagoner and the controller had stated that there would be an expenditure plan submitted to the controller, our policy recommendation would be that the expenditure plan would be submitted to the board of supervisors so they will have the final say as to how those funds are expended. >> if i may, i think the other point that's kind of worth emphasizing, i definitely understand the point that you're raising. i think by its nature there is a little bit of ambiguity associated with exactly how this funding would be used because we don't know who the mayor's going to be, we don't know what their vision and immediate policy priorities are going to be. i think that the purpose of this -- and there really is -- especially from the current
administration's perspective no immediate benefit in doing this -- the purpose and we could have balanced the budget easier by not balancing these funds but the purpose is after having seen a couple of transitions and having heard stories in the past about what some of the transitions have been like in the past, there have been some rocky ones where a mayor came in without the resources to fully staff through the end of the year. and had a gap between a point at which the mayor took off fers office and a point in which they can get the staff up and running and resulted in a periods of time where the city was not fully functioning and where the mayor's office didn't have the ability to really hit the ground running and begin managing the city from day one and so we feel like there's a responsibility from all of us in the city -- in the city family to try to provide some
resources to prevent that situation from happening. and i think it's a fair question about what that expenditure plan of this -- these funds are going to be, but i think there's some ambiguity factored into the nature of the transition. i think this is a very responsible kind of a good government thing to do to ensure that we have somebody coming in to the mayor's office who's going be able to have the resources they need and the flexibility that they need to both manage the city and begin working on the policy initiatives that they had promised as they've been elected to that office. >> thank you. and thank you supervisor kim and supervisor -- oh, i'm sorry and greg wagoner. so given the fact that we've got agreement from the budget office and our budget analyst,
colleagues can we take the recommendation without objection? >> madam chair, one item that mr. wagoner did not mention was the $4610 closeout of the incumbrances. i believe he agrees with that but he didn't mention it. >> the $4,000, that would be fine. >> so we've got agreement both on the recommended cuts as well as closing out those projects. we'll take both of those sets of recommendations without objection. and then with regard to the transition plan, that's snag we can pick up the following week. and if i can ask you perhaps to follow utch with supervisor kim on that -- >> i would be happy to and with anybody else to talk that through. >> supervisor wiener? >> i would love to follow-up on supervisor kim's comments and i agree with what you said and when i read that in preparing for today, i thought that was